The subject of photograph or composite or art has come up several times here in the past two weeks. The discussions have been great – some controversy , some conflict, but much learned.
The truth is that the photo world is changing – but should there be reasonable limits ?
As I was paging through the latest WPPI contest winners it struck me peculiar that nearly ALL the so called photos – were not actually photos at all – but rather heavily photoshopped and composited images. There are a few actual photos in the group – and for whatever reason, those are the ones I like the best… maybe I’m a luddite, who knew..LOL I guess real is no longer, real.
While these “photos” are certainly great works of art, I don’t think they really should categorize them as photos at all – in fact, I’d love to see the originals – my guess is they look nothing like the processed versions – but that’s perhaps why I am posting – what are your thoughts ? I’ve said before I am no purist, but man, some of these are pretty fabricated…
Check this WPPI link out… http://
A Blog By Seth Godin about what is real? http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2013/08/the-end-of-art.html#.UhQMsNuOaY4.facebook
Mark Kilian
Start the conversation…. Please comment BELOW!!!
I don’t like limits on things but if a contest wants non composites and “real” photos with minimal processing then that simply needs to be stated to what the contest is about. Or, as this contest has: Categories.
It’s all interesting to me.
I have said it before and now again: all photographs are interpretations. We interpret any scene in and scene by how we frame, crop and compose. It is simply part of the real scene. I think there is a move in wedding photography to create even more romantic and aspirational images. Not simply “real” moments.
While the “wedding industry” in general follows trends – or makes them – there is a major gap between it and the real world. What you see in magazines and blogs you are not seeing much of at all in actual wedding albums or that which hangs on walls. If anything, I’d say journalistic wedding photography (i.e. the real deal) is making a HUGE comeback. All the “trendy” storybook crap that you saw in magazines years ago is nothing but a forgone cliche now. My guess is that this also shall pass.
Someone who can take phenomenal pictures with patience and time (i.e. Ansel Adams) without the later use of photoshop, or something similar, to make the picture look good. Photography, like many others, has become a lost art thanks to technology.
Believe it or not for every hour Ansel Adams spent behind the camera – he spent many more in the lab. His techniques for processing were every bit as creative and important to the end result – as his capture. No one will argue that AA’s work was not photography, however, in reality very few of his masterpieces were single exposures either.
It is funny how people forget those processes in the lab when they refer to great photograph work in general. I agree Ansel Adams work awesome but it was more than the capture but the techniques used. Like photographers us in LR and Photoshop now… Easier, better, faster is not necessarily a bad thing… techniques are techniques… not bad photography. Art is an expression and photography is one way to express it.
I went to an exhibit of Ansel Adams work at the Phoenix Museum a few years ago. It featured one of his photographs with the notes he made on how to “adjust it”. It was fascinating and freeing. Most of the time, when I take a photo, it’s not only about what I see, but what I felt. Post processing does not make a bad photograph good, but it communicates what the artist wanted to say.
I agree with you Mark 100%. And no sensor or camera is prefect, so I will make notes. Yes, in a old fashion note book on the colors, the clouds and the clarity of the sky. This way in post I can keep my shots real.
But as pro I must give the customer what they need and that is when I find composite’s very important to my work.
Like most photographers, I’d be out of business without PS or LR – and I run plenty of composites as well, but I make sure my clients and public know that software skills, along with photographic skill was what created the value in the image, and I don’t call it a photograph – it is an image – big difference. Since I also teach and mentor – I want to make it clear to all of the up and coming photographers that the “images” are not 100 % real – so they are not out there killing themselves trying to duplicate the shot with just a camera – a shot that would be impossible even under ideal conditions.
Seth Godin hit it directly on the head in his post (linked above) we as photographers have to create VALUE or we compete on price. If using compositing and and artistic techniques to do so does it, then we hit a home run. That still does not mean we can call a 12 layer, HDR processed, multiple exposure, textured composite a photograph because it is not.
I think it is a matter of taste. I’ve seen a lot of photos, some different from the usual cactus and blue sky – some collage, some art, some fusion (painting and photo), extreme Macros. One fellow uses his Iphone and overdrives the colors. They are all fine art in their own right, all enjoyable, yet the photographer has taken a different approach in each case. I think it is important to keep an open mind. Finally, as I said before keep the Autotunes of photography (HDR) down to a dull roar.
“Photography, like many others, has become a lost art thanks to technology.” Actually quite the opposite – technology has enabled photography to reach artistic levels never encountered before and will continue to evolve as an art form.
“in fact, I’d love to see the originals – my guess is they look nothing like the processed versions…” Food for thought – do you ask a painter to see their original sketch or their original source photos to compare the before and after? Photographing and showing exactly what is there is ONLY ONE level of photography. For others like myself photography is all about expressing one’s own artistic vision and as so the final image need not look anything like the original.
Unless you are shooting for a newspaper why should the final image look exactly like it was? If all of us stood next to each other with the same gear and shot at the same time and processed it “just like it was” then everyone would have the same photo – how boring. It is what you do afterwords in post-processing and enhancement where each persons personal vision shines through and what allows for each of us to have a different interpretation of the scene and hence gives us all a different final image even if we were standing next to each other shooting with the same gear. That originality is what I enjoy looking at, and where the “art” comes into play.
A painter would never limit themselves creatively. If they are painting a building and the sky isn’t perfect from the reference they are using, they simply paint in a gorgeous sky and move on. Why should it be any different with photography? Don’t limit your creativity folks – if you do you limit your potential.
I don’t care what people do in post-processing. If I like it, I like it. If not, whatever.
However, a massively manipulated art project isn’t the same as a photograph.
I think people should be required to be transparent about the origins of their project, but that’s the contest’s choice to make that requirement. I wouldn’t pass off something I created in photoshop as an original photo. I would explain what I did. Being disingenuous about your work is sort of unethical, so create away, but be honest about how you got there. Clearly abstract Monet’s are not the actual scene, but it’s a painting & we expect that.
I agree 100% but then let’s not call it a photograph, its art at that point – created in a software studio.
I would also argue that 10 people can shoot the same subject in the same light and same angle – and yet we get 10 entirely different results. I see this in every one of my workshops. A piece of gear or software does not make a photographer, and it certainly does not assure everyone shoots the same or composes the same. That is the ART of photography in my opinion, not post processing.
I classify ‘photography’ into 3 categories and maybe should add a 4th.
Snapshots, whether taken with a PS, prosumer or pro camera just a quick photo of whatever more to record and capture.
Photographs, where planning, forethought, scheduling, special prep, etc is done for a job or just personal gratification, but doesn’t quite have that ‘wow’ to it. A great picture, maybe even in the top 5%.
Art photos, a photo taken when the environment was just right, or in some cases, that accidental moment where we were luckily in the right place and time. It has a somewhat illusive quality to it that takes it above the photograph level. People would say I want a print of that to hang on my wall.
The 4th category, ‘Created Art’, would be to take a photo from any of the other 3 and through PS or compositing creates a brand new work. I don’t think using HDR or panorama would qualify but it could move it into this category.
Nothing wrong with any of them as they are all a matter of taste and choice, but let’s be clear what category we’re talking about when referencing a picture. All of them have their value. IMO
Hi Glenn,
Your feedback makes me think more about why I own a camera. I enjoy the “gotcha feeling”, that surprised moments were adventure is imagined; the very essence is captured as it becomes poetry and art together. Photography takes me outdoors, triggering the bonding with my camera and subject of interest. Adding my personal touch to the photo, is fun and sometimes embellishing it with narration gives it life and journey, editing it with whatever grabs my interest at that moment becomes creative Digital Art for me. As an amateur, I think of what I can spend, save and down the line purchase and sell. My first purchased photo from this group was a high point for me…the photo transported me to where it was and the photographer, well, professional and generous with follow through about photo and framing..etc. I can get broke every month because there are so many striking and awesome photographs in the PAC stream!! There are so much gray area for me when it comes to purchasing, decisions on the best camera and my fixation for powerful Zoom lenses. Reason why I read and participate in the great topics, listen and balance what I’ve understood from the Photographers Adventure Club. Lastly, each photo for me is important even the ones that seriously require a professional photographers feedback. We see things differently or we spot the connection. Best of all, for me, I’ve learned that patience and compassion for Photography takes more than practice and hard work, it is doing my best to be grounded, connecting and listening to the subject(s) before and after clicking away and stepping back once in awhile to making more connection. 🙂
Glenn,
You have explained how I feel about where photography/photographic art is so well. I have have people who think I am wasting my money when I get new gear because “you can just PS it” and others who are horrified when I do PS it. For me personally I think of my DSLRs as film and try to get it “right” the first time. I do crop in and admit I have gotten lazy with horizons. With some events I shoot the lighting is strange and I do some light adjustments but rarely color correct. Even when I am just messing around for fun and for me I find I would rather play around with the camera settings to get a different feel then do the post work. Every once in a while I look at a photo and think if I do this or that to it it could be very interesting. Most of the time when I am done with those I call them art.
I’m not a Luddite, Mark, and I agree with you. I use PS, LR, and a host of filters at times but if I do more than color correct, I don’t call them photographs. I might just top at noting that they are post-processed in “XYZ” or if it’s more intensive work then I’ll call it digital art using a photograph as the beginning point of the process. I can pull a photo into Painter and turn it into art – digital art – but I wouldn’t call it a painting either. When I create a painting, I use actual paint, brushes, canvas/paper.
I would agree with Mark. Those are not photos.
As I stated on FB page, they are very nice pieces of art, but they are a turn off for me.
While many of the winners were beautiful, I would like transparency in the final product– is it a composite, HDR, etc. Particularly in photojournalism, it is important to not over-manipulate things. I think there is a line between a scene in which HDR is used to ensure good exposure throughout (or “dodging” & “burning” on a single image) & basic common “darkroom” fixes vs putting several different photos together or changing backgrounds or adding the moon, etc. I practice & try to improve my skills regularly, but I would like to know how certain effects are achieved so I can learn.
I also agree with Mark. True some of those photos are amazing to look at but in the back of my mind I wonder what the original looked like. Those photos that are fabricated with layers and then processed in the computer is not what you see in real time. The colors are blown way off the scale. When they have contests they should have different categories to show photos that are more true to life then ones that look unnatural. Technology is good and Photo Shop is fun to play with layers to produce different effects but sadly to many people are using technology this way and is taking away from what the eye actually see’s. How many of us look at the old Masters and look into the photo to see what is actually there. To see what the Masters eye see’s and how he brings it to life. Those are works of art.
“However, a massively manipulated art project isn’t the same as a photograph.” If it was photographed with a camera – no matter how many layers or combinations of photos was used – it’s still called a photograph in my book. Using a computer is no different than Ansel using his chemicals, dodging and burning, sandwiching negs, using hand of god, chemical temperature and mixtures, and everything else he could do in the chemical darkroom to print the way he wanted – not the way the camera saw it. His final prints never look like the negative – no reason why when using a digital darkroom things should change.
“Being disingenuous about your work is sort of unethical, so create away, but be honest about how you got there.” Not sure who is being unethical – unless someone is lying. But by simply not stating how one did something – that doesn’t make them unethical. No one is required to explain how they photographed or processed an image. How many magicians reveal their tricks and how things were done?
I just looked at the photos in question – loved almost every one of them and would without hesitation call them fine art photographs. Its easy to tell that a bit of work was done on them to get to what they are now. Its definitely far away from the original boring straight-out-of-the-camera images for sure. While it would be neat to see the original to see how much work they put into their final photos it doesn’t bother me not knowing every step they did – its much easier to sit back, relax, and enjoy some fine photography.
Wow. Photography certainly has had to fight to be recognized as an art form in its lifetime. We make photographs from a camera using light. Our choice of darkroom to develop those photographs has evolved over the years; with the help of technology, this ability has stretched the limits. How we use both camera and darkroom is subjective. A photograph is a captured moment in time. Anything that manipulates beyond light and a neat trim, I feel pushes the boundary…otherwise, the “magic” moments we strive to capture will be lost; I ask you then, how many images in your catalogs can you call photographs, truly?
Thousands. Because I’ve taken and valued education to become a Certified Professional Photographer which largely in part means I have to be proficient with my camera first. I’m not opposed to using Photoshop or other editing means but I do think there needs to be separate categories and recognition.
I could debate that nearly my entire library is. I have some fabrications, but very few – the bulk (90% or more ) are pure composition, color correction, WB correction using LR / PS to adjust dynamic range and produce exactly what I saw in my minds eye. If I were to submit them – there would be no doubt in anyone’s mind that they were photographs, not manipulated images. That said, a greater percentage of my recent work is composites and advanced retouches which quite clearly cross the line.
Exactly. a photograph is an image you have taken with your camera. The means to perfect that photograph is where the boundaries become fuzzy. Our understanding of what that photograph will be used for is subjective. Taking a photograph and having it acknowledged as art is quite thrilling. The ability to capture a moment with little to no alteration is the quintessential high. What darkroom tricks are needed for what end result? From what I know, Ansel Adams’ darkroom techniques were experiments that have now been emulated into filters, etc. in our digital world. And then the concept of what is art…lets stick to photographs. Composites definitely need a place of their own.
Yeah this bugs me and I wish WPPI and PPA and other judging associations would add in a category for digitally remastered images (see that even sounds cool huh?) To me a “real” photograph is one take in one exposure. Meaning one click, one layer as simple as it gets and to keep it really simple the only edits would be those made in any basic photo editing system (color temperature, contrast, exposure) I wouldn’t consider anything done with a plugin or addition of multiple layers to still be a “real” photograph. Personally I think it’s a disservice to our profession and industry to not separate a “real” photograph to the work done by a graphic artist.
“digitally remastered images” – I like that term!
I agree. I know as a photographer, I get tired of entering contests and not being able to have a chance to win because the winners are usually the very overly photoshopped images. I think in contests there should be a category for the photoshopped images.
I don’t think “fine art photography” is the same as an “average” photograph. And by average, I mean a normal, beautiful and classic photograph. Like Mike said, there are trends. Like the good ole’ selective color and the rustic look. A “real” photograph, like any photograph, is subjective.
What’s real about a photograph? It’s a 2D image depicting some indeterminate amount of time that can never be seen on it’s own without a camera. It’s not real. It’s never been real. It’s always been an art medium.
Journalism images are equally unreal. By composition and timing and framing and lens choice a viewer is told what to suppose, just as with a painting.
Whether I affect my picture with light and composition at the time of capture, or I affect it in Photoshop, it’s equally real.
The difference may be where the skill set lies, a capturing master or a processing master, and perhaps that’s the question.
I think a real photograph needs to reflect the reality, without insane photoshop. Those photos are nice but I would call the photographic arts instead of photographs. Even with HDR photography, I prefer to use it as a mean to counteract the limitation of dynamic range of the camera instead of making it too surreal when I want to create a photo instead of a photo art
I think the idea is real, the concept is real and the manipulation of light is real. However, if we are looking to create art, the brush stroke of each artist is different. Therefore, categories of what is art and what is a “real” photograph should be distinctively defined to avoid confusion by those that are just starting out. I simply like the idea that the debate continues. To answer the question, “I don’t know the answer.” I think there should be limitations or categories that allow for under- edited photos to enter and compete.
With all of the programs/plugins available to photographers and the fact that most photographers are shooting in Raw 99.9% of the time most photographs are edited. Winner of contests seem to be the ones that can either spend hours enhancing or editing a photo. The days of shooting a photo and not processing it are gone. To the rich go the spoils…..anyone with a digital camera is now a photographer because of these programs. Photography contests are also popularity contests, not judging photos for the skills of the photographer.
I think “photography” encompasses every product that contains film or pixel elements that you had a role in creating. Categories within photography have widely different parameters. Documentary, as I often shoot, includes a responsibility to document the things/people in the image with accuracy. The photographer still edits by selecting what is seen within the frame, but the premise of truthfulness precludes (for a stark example) taking a picture of an Iraqi weapons factory with a pile of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. That would be outside the defined constraints. The same might be true of real estate photography for selling properties, or any form of documenting. But advertisements, fashion, and creative impressions of anything without strict confines of accuracy (with any amount of creative retouching) are still photography for me.The wide spectrum of possibilities is what makes the field so exciting, with endless ways to learn. For me, it’s all art.
Its a great read but everyone has a different vision of what is a real photograph. I personally think a real photograph it an image that has had color correction. Now as soon as you start layering images adding clouds etc. is no longer a photograph it is not graphic art. Green screen, blue screen then adding backgrounds that graphic arts and talent to me. Its not any different than hunting down a storm and adding lightning and clouds because there was none the night you went out.
Cameras are getting good enough these days that just about anybody can take a reasonably technically good (lighting, focus, WB, color, etc.,) picture.
The difference between a “photographer”, and someone who “just takes pictures” will still often be obvious in the composition.
But it will also almost always be just as obvious which photographers have invested (time and/or money) in their post processing skills, and which ones haven’t. When it comes to this contest, any number of photographers (probably even many commenting here) could have captured very similar scenes with their cameras. But I seriously doubt there are many who could have produced those final winning images.
p.s. for the purposes of a “pure” contest, what would count as “not overly processed”?
For example, would you limit which sliders could be used (and by how much they could be moved) when adjusting a raw image?
What about .jpg images? A shot “straight” from a Sony, will probably look different than that exact same scene captured (and processed by the camera) with a Canon or Nikon.
“Cameras are getting good enough these days that just about anybody can take a reasonably technically good (lighting, focus, WB, color, etc.,) picture.” 😀
I hear this ALL the time and it just makes me smile. If it was that easy, there would be list a mile long of people sharing their success stories and everyone would driving around in BMWs. The silence is deafening – and the only BWM drivers I see are the ones who have real jobs..LOL
Kidding aside, how is it that everyone who buys themselves a camera at Costco or Wally World thinks they are a photographer ? Hell, even if they buy a 1DX or D4 or PhaseOne would it matter ? If I bought a gun and bullet proof vest does that make me a police officer ? How about a stethoscope .. does that make me a doctor? Photography, like anything else takes a TON of time and energy to develop the skill and simply put – if one has not put in the time, they are nothing more than a guy (or gal) with a camera.
Most of the photographers I know – the ones who have earned that title – have been shooting actively for several years – no, in fact most have been shooting most their life. Amateur or pro – they put in the time – I certainly don’t know anyone who ran out, bought a camera and hit the ground running producing masterpieces – perhaps there are some but that is exceptionally rare.
I’d debate strongly that the type, brand or technical capacity of a camera has very little, if anything to do with photography – one still needs to read and master the light and adjust the environment or conditions to “make” the image and if they cannot do that, the camera certainly won’t bail them out.
There has NEVER been such a thing as an untouched photo. Before digital you had to process your film. Lots of cool techniques were invented and composites were even possible. But even if you took a simple Polaroid it was still being processed and manipulated…without the photographers control.
Digital has given the option of letting the camera make processing decisions and spitting out a finished file OR allowing the photographer the ability to go into the digital darkroom and manipulate til it looks the way the photographer intended. So “purists” really can’t exist.
Photo or art is a horrible mislabeling. All photos are art. It’s what category of art they fit into. In my head I break it down to journalistic or creative. Journalistic being accurate representation of what the subject looked like at the time of photo. Creative being manipulated in a way that could not have been possible at the time of the photo. I think these simplistic definitions are in line with contest rules I’ve seen that allow basic manipulations like color, contrast, crop but do not allow altering the subject of the photo.
What I find interesting is the reaction to terms like HDR and stitching and stacking. Used in a certain way, I think they can be used in a journalistic way. Recently I’ve been doing all three of the techniques to create what my eye actually saw. Which was a much wider field of view with much greater dynamic range than a camera could capture. And does anyone’s eye see shallow depth of field?? If so I think you need to see your eye doctor! Ha ha! The eye has a very deep DOF…sometimes more than what a camera can reproduce in one shot.
Just my two cents!
I’d tend to agree with you on just about all your points – where that agreement ends though is when a moon is put in where there was none, skies are replaced, or wedding veils are made 50 feet long and float in the air. To me, if the event never happened or I cannot duplicate it with the camera – its not a photograph – whether the focus of the image was modified or not to me that does not matter…
In general I have no issues with multiple exposures, panoramas, stitched images, etc as long as the event depicted actually occurred. For instance – if someone takes 6 five-second exposures of a lightning storm and stacks them – or they take a single 30 second image that contains multiple strikes – who cares – same image in my book.
On the other hand, if someone photographs a sky and takes a lightning bolt from another image and adds a corona – then that is not an actual photo, but a composite or photo art.
My only point on any of this – is if contests are soliciting photography entries – they are actually getting a mix of purely journalistic images, some processed but still mostly journalistic images, and a lot of fabricated / creative photo art.
If only the creative art photos are winning, why would anyone bother submitting actual photographs ? If I had to guess – the majority of those images submitted ARE more journalistic and not nearly as processed as the winners. Sounds like racket to me.
Yes, good old Ansel A. did a lot of post production in the dark room. Manipulation is permitted to a point in my view. Color correction, contrast, density, things like that. After that, with layers and composites it is no longer a iconic version of a “photograph” in my opinion. To me, it then becomes a photo illustration, created mostly by a computers technology and not by the photographer. Creativity is in the plug in you have and not in one’s mind. Yes, yes it takes some creativity to think what to do with your plug ins but I am not sure if I still buy that as being an artist as compared to a technician that understands software.
My two cents
Sign me Mr. Old School:-)
Tom Speropulos
Going back to the basics, photography literally means “drawing with light” When film or sensor is exposed to light, an image is recorded. That is a photograph. I contend that nothing the photographer does to enhance the image changes that photograph to something else.
I used to do a project where I took a print and created a paper negative using a 5 filter in the process which eliminated all grays from the image. The final result was a print that looked like a pen and ink drawing. Still a photograph.
I saw a project in a book on photography where the photographer took a daytime landscape. He burned most of the landscape in but dodged out a white circle. The final result was a print that looked like a moonlit forest. Still a photograph.
Every type of manipulation in film, from dodging and burning, texture screens, negative scratching, solarization and Uelsman’s 9 enlarger creations all start with a negative, an original photograph. All the manipulations mentioned above don’t change that. Very little of what you see in film is SOOC.
Now we have new technology. And now we can put dinosaurs chasing bridal parties. I believe that is still a photograph…a very bad photograph. but a photograph none the less.
This whole debate comes down to whether we choose a narrow definition or a broad definition. Nothing wrong with choosing the narrow. I prefer to choose the broad.
Like many have said i think it depends on the situation and purpose. Years ago i submitted a picture to the news for a wild fire. For that shot, other than converting from raw to jpg and simple contrast and exposure adjustment, i did not make any changes. No power lines removed or anything. Since to me that was for journalism it needed to be the way it was.
Now if it is for another purpose like a contest, I think rules need to be clearly stated. Like with Nat Geo, a guy lost first place because he cloned out a bag. Now with the weather monsoon contest that was recent, a lady won with a composite lightning image. Sure it was pretty but it was not “real”. Now if she left her shutter open for 30 seconds she might have gotten a similar image but to me that would have been real. However, the person submitting the image stated it was a composite. The news organization did not make it clear to everyone and personally think if they allow composites it isn’t a “photograph” contest anymore. If you add elements to something not originally in the shot while the shutter is open, then it is not a photograph.
Once it gets mutilated, folded, and spindled… er I mean photo shopped, cropped and layered (yeah that’s it) it is no longer a photograph. It is art. Please do not call it a photograph, I beg you, You are killing me. I think the people who do these photo manipulations are very talented, and Nicholas Pappagallo Jr. teaches (Next PS / LR classes coming soon, sign-up quick) people how to do these well, but it is no longer a photograph.
There was a member who took a photo of a youth wearing a blue plaid-stripe shirt in field of yellow flowers of some kind. I thought it was beautiful that was it way. She was saying how disappointed she was in the lighting. If she changed the lighting, I wouldn’t have minded it so much because it wouldn’t have taken from the “realism” of the photo. IMHO, once you change textures, backgrounds, and layer in stuff, you lose the realism of the photo.Some of these manipulations look like paintings. To me they are not beautiful and I fail to see the relationship between the camera and that picture. Please stop killing me (I want to live) and call them anything but a photograph. Thank-you.
Pot-shotly yours.
Nick.
“Please stop killing me (I want to live) and call them anything but a photograph.”
I will call them photographs then only because I really want to see if this is possible. Think of the possibilities if this were real. Some guy comes up to mug you and you could shout “It’s a photograph!” and he would fall over dead. Pretty impressive.
Was a camera shutter engaged? If so, then to me it is a photograph. It may be enhanced to a great degree, even merging other photos with it, but it is a photograph. Do it without pressing a shutter or using anything from where someone else pressed a shutter, draw it freehand, then it isn’t a photograph.
Then again, I’m not a “professional” so I could be way off.
Bravo, bravo, bravo. I could not agree more. I could go on for hours as to why this is so totally true, but a photograph is supposed to reflect the vision of the artist. What one sees when they take the picture is the art form itself. If the artist vision does not reach out and tell the story, then embellishing it on a computer does not make it any better. There is photography and there is graphic art. I think we need to decide here if we’re interested in photography or graphic art. I’ve also notice that a lot of the PAC contest winners had images that were like this as well. What it come down to is who has the greatest mastery of software programs.
I hate over processed images….I belive in small editing but nothing too over the top!
This has been an interesting thread and I have enjoyed reading all of the replies. I am somewhat in the minority in this thread in terms of my opinion on what defines a real photograph – that’s cool – I’ve been a pro photog for the last 23 years and my opinions about what is and isn’t photography have definitely changed throughout my career. I was a photojournalist for 17 years and enhancement was out of the question then so I kinda had similar beliefs back then. Since 2006 I have been a full time fine art photographer and my ideas and beliefs have changed and evolved over that time.
For the photographers here saying it isn’t a photograph once a certain number of layers or adjustments are made – I would define you as today’s photo purists. Nothing wrong with being a purist – I was one at different stages in my career too. Note however that throughout photography’s history, being a photography purist you eventually become the minority as photography continues to evolve and grow and techniques and styles eventually become accepted. Again nothing wrong with that either.
Let me explain.
How many here print their photos using an archival Epson or similar inkjet printer? Does anyone here today object to calling an Epson print a photograph? Probably not.
However, the last round of photo purists – if it wasn’t printed by an enlarger with chemicals and photo sensitive paper – then it wasn’t a photograph to them. That was the majority opinion when digital printing first came out. There are still photogs out there who believe this, but I think today that the vast majority of photogs would call our Epson prints photographs.
The purists before that scoffed at digital. I was a digital pioneer but when digital cameras first came out most other photographers said they would never catch on and the purists of the day even said digital photos are not real photographs. There are still many pro’s who don’t consider digital as being photography – a vast minority now but still there. They feel if film wasn’t used it isn’t photography.
The purists before digital? They were against autofocus cameras. Yes I have been a pro photographer long enough to remember getting joked about for having an autofocus lens at a Div. 1 basketball game I was covering. Those purists didn’t last long.
Before that the purists said motor driven cameras were not cool, and before that the purists didn’t like it when color film came out.
Photography is one of the only art forms where the tools are always changing and advancing, and there is resistance at first then eventually acceptance by the masses. I bet if you asked any kid with a heavily filtered instagram photo if they took a real photograph and they would say of course. It’s always the next generation that really defines things.
The times are always changing. This too will pass. I can only wonder what next the purists will fight for. Who knows – maybe next time I will be one of them again 😛
For the record for those looking for definitions, in the art world – galleries/museums/art festivals – there are primarily 2 types of photography: traditional and digital. Traditional is shot with film and processed with chemicals and digital is shot with digital and enhanced on the computer to the photographers delight (no silly limit on the amount of layers used – anyone serious enough about photo processing would know that the amount of layers used definitely has no bearing on how much a photo was or wasn’t enhanced). I think those definitions suffice. Once digital came out the whole game changed folks and just like throughout history the purists revolt and the rest move on and keep on creating and advancing what we call photography.
In conclusion if you don’t like heavily “photoshopped” images stop trying to come up with a name or description for it and rather just call yourself a photo purist and enjoy your place in history. There’s plenty of room for both purists and those pushing the limits of photography with creative post processing.
@ Matt – photography is nothing more than reading light and freezing time – and so when we compose and capture an image – THAT is what we should be calling a photograph. Sure we might print it on fancy paper, and make some adjustments in the lab, dodging, burning, maybe cloning out some distracting element like a mole, wrinkle, power line, specular highlight – but the image is still mostly resembling what we saw and what came out of the camera.
There is nothing wrong with “processing” an image and having it reflect what we saw when we made the photo.
What I, and most here struggle with – is when someone takes a photo, morphs it into something that has no resemblance whatsoever to a real scene, or one that could never happen in reality – and still calls it a photo.
That is the fundamental root of this discussion. What started out as a photo has been turned into graphic art – and there IS a difference. With a photo – I can go to a place and actually make a similar photo. With graphic art, I cannot. As I said in my original posts – I’d love to see the actual place or event that ANY of those images were made in – my guess is that we cannot because they are fantasy. Again – NOT photos, but fabrications.
I have no problems with them, in fact I think they are works of art and some are well done (some are not, but that’s my opinion) . In general I think photo contests are a joke as they seem to have lost touch as to what a photo really is.
We can look at the definitions and anal-ize this to death but the fact remains that FEW of the images in that contest were actual photos and nearly all are photoshopped art. If you look at Ansel Adams or any of the “Old Masters” work, not anyone would argue that those are photographs. Yes, they were heavily worked in a lab, they still LOOK like photos.
The images we are discussing, DO NOT look like photos, they look like dreamy, artistic impressions where a photo was used as the foundation – again – way different animal.
I think if the PPA, WPPI, and all these so called “experts” who run these photo competitions (I hate photo contests, BTW and would never enter one) really were to be fair, they should have two categories of images – Photography and Photo Art. I think calling most of the images in this “photo contest” photos is not just pushing the truth – its outright preposterous and especially unfair to all the participants PAYING to submit actual photographs and being trumped out by graphics artists.
One would have to have serious graphics art skills to achieve any of the effects these “photographers” would have used to process these images. If I were to guess, some of these images probably had more than one person working on them.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it !
I should also note – that anyone who knows me or my work will be the first to say I am anything but a purist. It would probably be safe to say that ALL of my images are photoshopped or processed in some way – some heavily – but it would also be safe to say that I doubt anyone would ever argue they were not photographs.
Truth be told, I’d love to have graphics art skills like the folks do in those images, but let’s call it what it is.
Somehow this got posted out of sequence.. it belongs under my other post..:(
Thank You!
B.B. 🙂
@ Matt – photography is nothing more than reading light and freezing time – and so when we compose and capture an image – THAT is what we should be calling a photograph. Sure we might print it on fancy paper, and make some adjustments in the lab, dodging, burning, maybe cloning out some distracting element like a mole, wrinkle, power line, specular highlight – but the image is still mostly resembling what we saw and what came out of the camera.
There is nothing wrong with “processing” an image and having it reflect what we saw when we made the photo.
What I, and most here struggle with – is when someone takes a photo, morphs it into something that has no resemblance whatsoever to a real scene, or one that could never happen in reality – and still calls it a photo.
That is the fundamental root of this discussion. What started out as a photo has been turned into graphic art – and there IS a difference. With a photo – I can go to a place and actually make a similar photo. With graphic art, I cannot. As I said in my original posts – I’d love to see the actual place or event that ANY of those images were made in – my guess is that we cannot because they are fantasy. Again – NOT photos, but fabrications.
I have no problems with them, in fact I think they are works of art and some are well done (some are not, but that’s my opinion) . In general I think photo contests are a joke as they seem to have lost touch as to what a photo really is.
We can look at the definitions and anal-ize this to death but the fact remains that FEW of the images in that contest were actual photos and nearly all are photoshopped art. If you look at Ansel Adams or any of the “Old Masters” work, not anyone would argue that those are photographs. Yes, they were heavily worked in a lab, they still LOOK like photos.
The images we are discussing, DO NOT look like photos, they look like dreamy, artistic impressions where a photo was used as the foundation – again – way different animal.
I think if the PPA, WPPI, and all these so called “experts” who run these photo competitions (I hate photo contests, BTW and would never enter one) really were to be fair, they should have two categories of images – Photography and Photo Art. I think calling most of the images in this “photo contest” photos is not just pushing the truth – its outright preposterous and especially unfair to all the participants PAYING to submit actual photographs and being trumped out by graphics artists.
One would have to have serious graphics art skills to achieve any of the effects these “photographers” would have used to process these images. If I were to guess, some of these images probably had more than one person working on them.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it !
With all due respect @6IXGUN they all do look like photographs to me. Every single one of them. Photographed in actual places and heavily edited to bring out their vision.
You keep on mentioning the photographers who posted those photos are “graphic artists” and not photographers.
Graphic artists work with line art and vector graphics. Please show me graphic art in the samples being discussed. You can’t because they don’t exist. The definition of “graphic arts” is this: any of the fine or applied visual arts based on drawing or the use of line, as opposed to colour or relief, on a plane surface, esp illustration and printmaking of all kinds. 1. Also called graphics. the arts or techniques, as engraving, etching, drypoint, woodcut, or lithography, by which copies of a design are printed from a plate, block, or the like.
2. the arts of drawing, painting, and printmaking.
We can agree to disagree on the overall principle but those photographs should not be labeled as “graphic arts”.
“Truth be told, I’d love to have graphics art skills like the folks do in those images, but let’s call it what it is.”
Yes let’s call it like it is. They have no graphics art skills and are NOT graphic artists – but are heavily skilled in using photo techniques, composition, and software to enhance their work to show THEIR vision – they go beyond what a simple mechanical device like a camera sees and they show a part of themselves – again using photo enhancement techniques. In my book that is fine art photography 🙂
@ Matt – You are right, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I respect where you are coming from, however the times have changed and what title fit before is now no longer true.
We employ 2 part time degreed graphic artists and I assure you – both of them have amazing photoshop and photo editing skills they sometimes turn plain product images into crazy cool art. Vectors and line art ? In the 90s graphics artists were mostly known for their vector work and typesetting / logo design and line art. That is long gone – software does that automatically now – we have not used that term in more than 10 years. Just about everything in modern ad campaigns today is multi-dimensional and we use mostly Photoshop – but also Illustrator and even Corel Painter to create “graphic” designs. Many times a photograph is at the foundation of these designs but its morphed into an art form – very much like the “photos” in that contest. Today graphic artist ABSOLUTELY incorporates a meld of original photo work and art and lately, even video. If they don’t they are unemployed.
I would not expect anyone to take my words blindly – you can see a good breakdown here:
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-graphic-artist.htm
It should also be noted that nearly all the photo art edits and video edits you see in the movies that transform people into Iron Man or The Hulk are in fact, graphics artists. Many of the best digital animators also have graphic arts degrees.
Here is a great example of a graphic artists’ work with some great before and afters to demonstrate it…. Paul won the Photoshop Guru award, one of the highest honors NAPP gives out.
http://photobart.net/index.html
As a “Hobbyist Photographer” one learning and using all that is available to improve her skill……FACT is, as I learn more about my camera and techniques the less I need those added programs. BUT …I ask each of YOU if you were just starting out today…would you or wouldn’t you take advantage of the technology today.
The best thing anyone could do to actually “learn” photography is to put the camera in RAW mode, set it to M, and ISO 200 and then learn to control and compose taking as few images as possible (i.e. not spray and pray)…
Process the images minimally in Lightroom, learn not to try to “save” them, but rather discard and re-shoot missed images ( you can do this while you are learning).
Do everything you can to get it right in camera (within reason) and then make small adjustments in LR – it will be frustrating and maybe aggravating at first, but over time you will build on a great set of fundamentals and actually LEARN photography instead of relying on the technology alone.
Kind of like taking the plane off autopilot.
Once you actually understand all the fundamentals, then you can explore the amazing world of processing software and tech tools available
Photography forces patience. Take it slow and great things will come, rush it or take shortcuts and the work will suffer.
Very nicely said.
Getty Images handles my photo archive. If anything is done in Photoshop it has to be noted in the file because it is now an “altered” image. That includes slight desaturation. I love beautiful photography and to me these images are now composited images and a different category. I hope PJ comes back strongly and people move away from these highly edited images. For me it’s about the moment and not what you can do to alter it in PS. Ansel Adams was burning and dodging, he was not adding in other mountains, trees and adding a moon where there wasn’t one….
Amen Landry – 100 % agree.
I mostly agree with your points in this discussion Nicholas. I strongly prefer to see the original photograph alongside the edited versions. I’ve actually gotten in heated discussions with other artists about this subject. My point has always been about wanting to see the original and see where the artist was going with their thought process. By no means am I against edits, I edit near every photograph I take. It is usually just slight enhancements or a processed HDR stack. I love it all but agree that there should remain a section/contest/area for the original photograph or near to it anyway. I also love to see the heavily edited versions and want to learn how to do more edits to my workflow. Anyway, after all is said and done, I agree with you Nicholas.
Right on Landry. I think a lot of people are missing the point. Technology is great. Our lives are so much better off that they were 100 year ago, but think about some of these things.
1. Digital photography put more cameras into the hands of more people than ever. However, I believe the original intent of digital photography was to be a continuation of film photography. Photo editing software came along and quality photos were no longer needed. They could be photo shopped, manipulated and turned into whatever we want. Formal education or training in photography is vital, but in a lot of ways no longer necessary when the photographer puts his camera on auto. It’s instant gratification. If the picture is bad, just take another one. Back in the day when we relied on film and developing, you had to get the shot right, the first time. This required skill, technique and and artistic vision. Those are things that cannot be taught in school, nor can they be replaced by any software or electronics. It’s going to come to the point where a camera is no longer needed to create digital images, just the same way that music can be created at a computer. While I’m on that just think how much better some of the older music sounded when it was recorded on a 16 track machine. Does anyone remember separation?? Can you even hear it anymore in today’s music. Want more to think about?? Here’s point number 2. It might be off the wall, but here’s the direction our civilization is going.
2. Some countries in this world are facing a health crisis and an epidemic of obesity from too many people eating processed food. Think about the last time you sat down to a meal that was freshly prepared. After WW 2 a whole generation practically lived on burgers and fries and today people get sick from drinking milk and eating peanuts and wheat. Really?? Just think what all of modern technology does to our mind.
3. We spend countless hours in front of computers, tablets and cell phones. Can anyone remember the last time we wrote a letter by hand?? Just like the art of photography, reading writing and arithmetic have gone the way of the horse and buggy. Just like we no longer have to think for ourselves, we no longer have to see for ourselves. We are at the mercy of whatever technology engineers and manufacturers throw at us until are lives are an empty shell of what they used to be. Want more?? Read point number 4
4. This might be off the wall, but consider our budget deficit. Just think that in WW 2, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, we flew planes, helicopters and drove vehicles that no flight computers, navigation systems or automatic transmissions. Hell Lewis and Clark went from Missouri to Oregon with no maps. Back in the day, every government vehicle had a good old manual transmission. Just think how much it’s cost our local, state and federal government to equip vehicles with automatic transmission and all of our aircraft with flight computers and navigation systems. Am I making a point yet?
If you can see what’s wrong with this picture, you got my point. I think everyone who calls themselves an artist needs to preserve and hold precious all of the things in this world that made it great to begin with. Eat some real food, drive a car with a manual transmission, read a real paperback book, write a letter by hand, have some original thought and vision and please take some real photographs.
I like photos that have not been Photoshopped. They are more real to me. I like to try and capture what I want in the camera. I have a basic program and I have played with it, but I like straight out of the camera.
Photoshopped things may well be art. Photographs may also be art. But the ‘art of photography’ is best exemplified by a pure image captured in camera as intended for use. Define a ‘real photograph’? The way I see it there is not a boundary where you pass from ‘real’ into manufactured. Probably the only truly ‘real photographs’ are shot in light and action situations where the photographer has NO control. Everything we do as artists to control the source and the process and the output moves further down that path to manufactured art. So long as it is not evidence in a court where criminal penalties apply, who cares? If you look at it and it is ‘art’ to you, then it is ‘art’.
They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I suppose the muddled line between when a photograph is no longer a photograph might be too. For me personally, tweaking the exposure, contrast, color saturation, doesn’t take away from the photo. Once I start removing or adding elements of the scene, and layering effects to create something more surreal, then I tend to refer to my work as photographic art.
As a former optical and image systems designer and past member of the SPSE/SPIE ( http://spie.org/ ), technically speaking, my humble opinion is that every photograph is “real” in the sense of the system that captured it.
Whether it is a simple pinhole camera, or the multimillion dollar multipsectral Integraph Systems camera ( http://www.intergraph.com/photo/ia.aspx ), the images that these solutions capture will always be different from what our miraculous eye perceives. With the ability to discern millions of shades of color, and a tonal range within that of over 1:100000, there is not a sensor available or a print technology on the planet that can match that capability of the human eye.
In the pre-digital days of photography, the layering and sensitivity of the dyes in both black & white and color, and then the chemical processing and printing processes provided an image that was ” real ” to the process involved.
Today, when you click the shutter on your DSLR, your iPhone or other digital capture gizmo, powerful microprocessors and their algorithms take over, giving you another ” real ” image, but that is not likely to be the one that your eyes capture at that instant.
Then, to complicate the equation, the chroma, gamma, modulation transfer function, and a number of other factors in your monitor or viewing system present another ” real ” image to you, which is likely to be again different from that experienced by a different viewer on their monitor, again, technically speaking, these are all ” real ” images.
If you choose a print format, even with the best HDR processing techniques ( not the jazzy surreal HDR effects ), you loose at least 1:1000 or 3 f stops of tonal range under the best conditions going to a reflective print.. easy enough to prove with a spotmeter comparing the best possible print to the actual scene, or that on a monitor, so from a image-geeks perspective, I take that position that all photographs are ” real “, given the systems and processes that create them… amen … B-)
My response is based on limited experience as a photographer. My background is in other areas of visual art. I’m not concerned with “realness” when personally appreciating a photographic work. However, if photographs are submitted for competition— how the photograph was produced or altered might matter. Shows that involve judging should be clear on what is required from the photographer. In other fine art competitions, awards are given by categories such as watercolor, oils, acrylics, mixed media, etc. Perhaps there could be photographic categories which include how the work was produced, so the judging is done on a level playing field.
I’m a shy person and normally keep my mouth shut and head down when it comes to arguments between photographers but i want to take a stand and defend my work. I won first place in the WPPI comp for High School Seniors with my piece titled”The Red Swan.”. I was just at my local PPA image comp where my work was criticized and marked down for being a digital manipulation and not real. t WPPI this year two of my prints were judged twice, moved into different catagories and my initial scores were lowered. At a class about preparing for peint competition my images were used as examples of unrealistic work that has gone too far and cant be competed with. It is a photograph! I shoot in Raw so yes, it has been peocessed in Lightroom for color and contrast, sharpening and dodging and burning. In photoshop i extended the background in one corner where the black background had moved up. Does that make it not a photograph? I spend hours and hours sitting on the bottom of my pool making sure the light is right, the exposure is right, the composition is right and my subject (a real high school senior by the way) is exactly how i want her to be. Its really really hard work and i feel justified in defending it was a photograph. A lot of my underwater work i add clouds or a texture over, and if you dont want to call those photographs thats fine, i dont care, but my winning piece is a real photograph. (I apologize for my typing, my ipad keyboard isnt working consistantly.)
@ Cheryl, no one here is arguing, this is a discussion, and a good one at that, everyone’s opinion is welcome.
My opinion is that if I was a WPPI or PPA judge any image that looked like it was extensively retouched or manipulated would be downgraded, or classified as digital art or graphic art. A I am not a purist. I think retouching and stacking is a necessary evil at times but I think for something to be called a photograph – it should at least be recognizable as a photograph. If I see blending, compositing, or any other technique that effects the realism (its very easy to see in most photos if you work with PS every day) – it becomes photo art and not a photograph.
I looked at “The Red Swan” It is beautiful, very well done, I’ll withhold an art vs. photo discussion on it as it looks quite photographic from the small image on the WPPI Page, the reflection however looks shopped. It however, an incredible job, congrats too for the 1st place.
WPPI and PPA can be fickle – some judges love the shopped look some don’t. Obviously in the latest round the former applies as nearly ALL the images in the original link above demonstrate massive retouching. Also in the gallery where The Red Swan is featured, most of those images are highly processed. I’d say there are 3 to 4 that are actual photos. Yours I could go either way on – and that says to me you have a great touch – so please take that as a compliment.
The second place photo for Seniors is a photoshopped, HDR mess – and while its still cool – its not a photo to me. Obviously the judges disagree with me on that one.
I think a lot of this could be cleared up by simply having two classifications of image – photography and photo art. In that case – no one would argue, and it would be more more fair to photographers that are not also graphic designers.
I appreciate the discussion, its just so ironic to me that I have never once altered a reflection in one of my underwater images and yet that is what people point out as being fake. It’s pure photography, which again, is ironic because I don’t strive to be a pure photographer.